Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 72
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-06-21 17:21 [p.8871]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-06-18 12:22 [p.8779]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Report on the Government’s Report to Parliament: August 2020 Prorogation—COVID-19 Pandemic”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, the official opposition generally agrees with the committee's findings and recommendations on the government's claims for why it prorogued Parliament last August. It was clear to Conservatives that the Liberals shut down Parliament last summer to cancel four committee investigations into the WE scandal and to prevent the ethics committee from learning how profitable the Trudeau family name has been for the Prime Minister's mother and brother.
We deeply regret that the Liberals mounted a filibuster for over 100 days, preventing the committee from hearing from the Prime Minister and anyone else who had a role in his decision to shut down Parliament. With the help of the New Democrats, the Liberals managed to avoid any further scrutiny in committee.
Where Conservatives part company with the committee's report is that we think the committee should actually finish the study by hearing from the Prime Minister. We think the committee should be empowered to order the Prime Minister to give testimony, and for the committee to see the PMO's emails and text messages about the plan to shut down Parliament.
The committee report and the Liberal filibuster add another chapter to the current government's record. More scandals, more corruption and more cover-ups are what Canadians can expect from the Prime Minister and the Liberals.
There is only one choice to end this corruption and secure accountability in Ottawa: Canada's Conservatives.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-06-11 12:11 [p.8283]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met on Monday, May 31, 2021, to consider orders for the second reading of private members' public bills originating in the Senate and the items added to the order of precedence. The subcommittee recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-06-11 12:12 [p.8283]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.
If this House gives its consent, I move that the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Bruce Stanton Profile
2021-06-11 12:13 [p.8283]
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
Hearing none, the House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion being adopted will please say nay.
Hearing none, the motion is carried.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the prima facie contempt, concerning the misconduct of the Member for Pontiac committed in the presence of the House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Banff—Airdrie.
View Blake Richards Profile
CPC (AB)
View Blake Richards Profile
2021-06-07 16:04 [p.8036]
Mr. Speaker, I certainly commend your ruling. It is important that this matter be examined. Obviously, when we have a case of someone literally exposing themselves to the House on two different occasions, that is a pretty serious matter and one that does deserve to be reviewed by the procedure and House affairs committee.
I would also note that what we have seen is maybe a bit of a pattern of a general degradation of decorum and debate in the chamber by the fact that we have had the hybrid type of proceedings. No one denies that this has been necessary because we have been dealing with a pandemic. Certainly, we have seen everything from issues with connections, sound quality, right through to instances like we have seen in the case of the member for Pontiac on a couple of occasions.
A lot of that stems from the fact that people are a bit more relaxed and comfortable because they are at home or in their offices. Sometimes members forget that they are still in proceedings of the House of Commons. It is something that is very difficult, if not impossible, to do when we are here in the chamber. We understand the gravity and the respect that we must provide this institution when we are part of the proceedings here in the chamber, whether we are speaking, or observing debate or preparing for our opportunity to speak. I think that relaxation does lead to things like this.
I look forward very soon to the day when we are able to see the end of hybrid proceedings, as we see vaccination rates go up in the country, etc., and have the opportunity for all members to be back in the House of Commons, where we belong and where we all want to be. Hopefully, that will help to prevent instances like this as well as bring back elevated debate and decorum in this place.
Again, I look forward to that opportunity very soon for all of us to be back in the chamber in person, so hopefully we can move on without these kinds of instances in the future.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, the minister is probably one of the smoothest speakers I have ever heard in Parliament. Let us be honest. We have been speaking about the bill for about four and a half hours. On Friday, yes, there were Conservative speakers, because at 12:06 p.m., we found out that no Liberals would be speaking.
I recognize all these things. However, we talk about a sunset clause, but it is mentioned only the preamble of the bill. Therefore, a lot of work needs to be done.
Most of all, why did the minister put forward legislation before he got the excellent report that came out of the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs? Why did he go forward with this legislation before taking any of the information that we had provided to him?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2021-05-10 12:15 [p.6940]
Madam Speaker, I suppose I should thank my hon. colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London for what was surely intended as a compliment.
I share her view that the procedure and House affairs committee did excellent work in studying the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. We obviously followed the work of the committee very closely. I would note that the legislation largely follows the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer. We just disagreed and thought we should have more potential voting days than simply those on the weekend before what had traditionally been a polling day on Monday.
We introduced this legislation before Christmas because we thought it was important for Parliament to have a chance to consider it over the Christmas break. I talked to a number of colleagues in the House of Commons during that period. When it came back, we called it for debate.
My hon. colleague said that last Friday at 12:06 p.m. she found out there would be no Liberals speaking. That was precisely because we wanted the debate to conclude so Parliament could vote and the committee could begin studying the bill. The Conservatives obviously used that as a chance to filibuster it.
View Peter Kent Profile
CPC (ON)
View Peter Kent Profile
2021-05-10 13:29 [p.6945]
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-19, if in the shadow of time allocation. I will get to aspects of the bill that I consider worthy and a number of provisions that I believe should be amended in committee, in a moment, but first I will address a number of the underlying issues that have affected the way this bill was mismanaged in its creation, as so many other pieces of legislation have been similarly in this Parliament.
The crux of the problem is not the COVID pandemic. The crux of the problem is the arrogance of the current government to approach virtually every practice and procedure as though it won a majority in 2019. The Liberals refuse to recognize the range of realities, most importantly the pragmatic humility a minority government must practise to govern effectively. The current Liberal government, as in the last Parliament, has ignored committee studies, reports and recommendations in the creation of legislation dealing with critically important issues, such as privacy, foreign affairs, the digital charter, regulating the Internet, medical assistance in dying, and now Bill C-19, an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, provisionally, for a possible general election in this pandemic, a pandemic that will last much longer because of the government's inability to properly procure vaccines and to accept Conservative advice when the pandemic first struck and at every stage since.
The Liberals, with selfish impatience, introduced Bill C-19 last December, not waiting for the completion of a long and thorough study on essential amendments to the Canada Elections Act to protect public health and democracy during a possible pandemic election. An interim report by the committee was, at the time, within days of being presented to the government. That report was pre-empted by Bill C-19, ignoring the suggestions of the exhaustive study and disrespecting not only opposition members on the committee and the many expert witnesses who testified during the study, but the Liberal chair and Liberal committee members, who had worked collegially with the opposition to develop comprehensive recommendations for such an important study.
The Liberals clearly intended then to rush the legislation through Parliament, as they have done with so many other flawed pieces of legislation from the beginning of the pandemic, but in this case the rush was not to help Canadians still in the grips of the pandemic, and it was not to prepare a plan for economic recovery to get Canadians back to work; it was in the political self-interest of preparing for the snap election they were thinking they might get away with. In doing so, they not only disregarded the work of parliamentarians, but wasted the valuable time of health officials and elections experts who appeared during the thorough procedure and House affairs committee study.
In doing so, they ignored the reality that an overwhelming majority of Canadians did not want then, and do not want now, a general election in a deepening pandemic crisis. If the Liberals had any doubts, that was surely driven home in the subsequent cycle of spiking infections and death across the country and the provincial elections conducted under pandemic conditions, most notably the profoundly disrupted Newfoundland and Labrador election.
The interim report of the committee contained extensive, reasoned advice based on the testimony of expert witnesses that would have improved Bill C-19 before it was tabled, but the final report of our committee, submitted to the government in February of this year, provided even more important advice. Most important, the committee advised the government and recommended unanimously, every Liberal member on the committee as well, that the federal government commit to not calling a federal election during the pandemic, unless defeated on a vote of confidence.
Further, Conservative members of the committee wrote a supplementary report, which reiterated the recommendation against holding a pandemic election and elaborated, noting that Bill C-19 was uninformed by the extensive content of the committee report and stating very clearly that the government has a moral obligation to refrain from triggering an election or orchestrating its own downfall, as the Prime Minister has already tried to do a number of times.
Because of the government's inability to manage its own legislative agenda, the bill before us has had precious few hours of debate.
A key element of Bill C-19 involves the change of the usual designation of an election day to be an election period of Saturday, Sunday and Monday, rather than just Monday, to provide more time for voting, social distancing and the precautions necessary to provide safe voting places. The bill also provides for the extension of voting hours of polls, if necessary to midnight, on any polling day, but not to exceed 28 hours for the three-day election period.
The bill also changes the maximum writ period to 53 days because of the many challenges anticipated for in-person voting or involving mail-in ballots. With regard to mail-in ballots, the bill allows electronic applications to be made with proper security protocols, of course, for mail-in ballots. They are very detailed provisions, which I believe would secure the safety of those ballots. There are also provisions for the safe casting of votes in institutions, in facilities where seniors and persons with disabilities reside.
I will support all of those provisions in the bill, on the condition that they expire automatically, completely and absolutely six months after the pandemic period is considered to have ended.
However, there are a number of elements in this legislation that I strongly oppose and believe should be amended. I believe they must be amended at committee, our procedure and House affairs committee, which was so ignored and so disrespected by the original tabling of this legislation in December.
First and foremost, there is a provision for counting mail-in ballots after the end of the official three-day election period. Given the new powers granted the Chief Electoral Officer for early mail-in ballots and extended poll hours, there is absolutely no reason, no excuse, for any ballots received after polls close on election day to be counted. Election day must be decision day.
As well, while I accept the extension of pandemic powers to the Chief Electoral Officer, I oppose the provision that would expand his determination of “satisfactory proof of the elector's identity and residence”. Pandemic protocols should not enable greater voter fraud than already exists in non-pandemic elections.
In conclusion, I want to remind all members of this House of the unanimous recommendation of the procedure and House affairs committee, each and every Liberal member included, that the federal government must commit to not calling a federal election during this continuing pandemic, unless it is defeated on a vote of confidence.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-05-10 19:01 [p.6997]
Mr. Speaker, our institutions are being undermined first by the closure motion and second by the fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked on this issue as of October 22 and presented a report entitled “Final Report: Protecting Public Health and Democracy during a Possible Pandemic Election”.
Committee members worked for 24 hours, heard from at least a dozen witnesses and rushed to table a preliminary report to enlighten the government, which needs all the help it can get because it is short-sighted. Committee members submitted their report as soon as possible, in other words on December 11, 2020, but this bunch of Liberals introduced its bill on December 10, 2020. It is an affront to the institutions. I would be embarrassed if I were them. I would make like an ostrich and bury my head in the sand.
The Liberals did not wait for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to be done before introducing their bill on December 11, 2020. They did not bring it up again in the House until March 8. Why not wait for the results of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, since the committee members had called professional witnesses, studied the issue, taken the time to do the work and were only too happy to advise the government?
The pandemic is being used as an excuse. It seems to be making the members opposite do all sorts of foolish things. They claim that since we are in a pandemic, they can play with democratic rights. No, that is not how it works.
Here is a clear example of the lack of ethics in this government. Everything this government does is the opposite of what Midas did. Everything Midas touched turned to gold, but the Liberals are Sadim. Midas spelled backwards is Sadim. Everything this government touches turns to dirt.
The Liberals tried to close the borders, but they never managed to. The third wave is their fault. That is a fact. When the rail crisis happened, the government sat on its hands. It took the Liberals 30 days to wake up. While travelling abroad for a week and a half, the Prime Minister said it was the responsibility of the provinces and Quebec. When he returned home after 10 days, he finally got it and said that the Bloc Québécois's idea was a good solution.
This same government, which is incapable of making a decision, is shutting down democracy, thanks in part to the NDP's help. How can I possibly describe what the NDP is doing and still be polite?
The NDP is happy to gag itself. NDP members are stuffing rags in their mouths and saying nothing. They are propping up a government that is trampling on voters' basic rights.
Voters have the right to vote intelligently, and members of Parliament have the right to govern the right to vote through discussion and consensus-building. The Liberals are violating democracy, and they are proud of it. What a government.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, the government's legislation designed to make changes to the Canada Elections Act in the case of a potential pandemic election.
Over the past year, Canadians have changed much about what they are doing every day. They have changed how they do grocery shopping, how they do their work and how they socially interact with one another. In the same way, we have to start thinking about how we might change how we hold federal elections to reflect the realities of the pandemic. This is especially important in a minority Parliament, where things are not quite as stable as a majority and elections are a little more frequent.
Before I get into the government's legislation, it is important to note right off the bat that the government should not unnecessarily jeopardize the health of Canadians through an election. This pandemic continues to put a strain on all Canadians, and the last thing they need is the government putting their health on the line because the Liberals think it is good for them politically. Canadians are doing their best to keep their families safe and healthy, despite the challenges of COVID-19. Unfortunately, the government has already, on multiple occasions, threatened to send Canadians to the polls, risking their health and safety, instead of answering questions about the failed elements of its pandemic response or its ethical scandals. I was happy that, when this was discussed at the procedure and House affairs committee, the Liberal members actually agreed with this and included it in our final report.
Sadly, it seems as though the Liberal members of that committee do not hold much sway with the PMO. I only say this because, even though the government knew that PROC was working on a report that would help inform its legislation, the minister bypassed all the work of the committee and introduced Bill C-19 without taking any of the expert testimony into account. Some members of the procedure and House affairs committee are now talking about a prestudy of Bill C-19 that would rehash a lot of the same ground covered in the initial study. This suggestion could only make sense because all of the evidence was ignored the first time around.
However, with that discussion out of the way, I am happy to get into the meat of Bill C-19 and discuss the positives and negatives of it. I always try to look at things fairly, and I can honestly say that in my time as an MP I have not shied away from saying there are things in a bill that are not okay. Even if I do not like the whole thing, I like to try to find good in legislation from all sides. Members could even see that last night with the budget, and there are some good things here in Bill C-19.
For example, I am happy to see the inclusion of multiple voting days, which would be called a “polling period”. Having more than one voting day would help ensure that Canadians can come out to vote in as normal a fashion as possible, while still spacing out timing and physical distancing. Another flexible option we know already exists in Canada is the opportunity for mail-in ballots. However, in previous elections this method has not been used to the extent that we expect would happen in a pandemic election. The Chief Electoral Officer has said that we could see five million mail-in ballots if the government calls a pandemic election. We need to make sure we are prepared to receive and process these. We have spoken to Canada Post and it has assured us it is ready; we need to make sure we are ready as well.
The Chief Electoral Officer is responsible for making sure Canadians know that mail-in ballots are an option. However, Bill C-19 would offer a helpful way for Canadians to be able to apply for their mail-in ballot online. To be clear, Canadians would not be able to vote online, only to apply for their hard-copy mail-in ballot. As I am sure Canadians agree, a pandemic is certainly not the time to consider massive new sweeping changes to the electoral system, such as online voting. However, allowing Canadians to apply online for their special ballot would be a positive change to help enhance flexibility.
Another positive addition of Bill C-19 would be the installation of reception boxes—
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the Conservatives talk about this government bringing on an election. We are in a minority Parliament right now. The government does not control the agenda. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives have routinely been voting against confidence motions when it comes to the budget and other items. They are the ones who are dangling an election over Canadians' heads right now.
The member is on the PROC committee, and I was on that committee with her for quite a while. That is great. She knows the value of digging into the details of this at PROC and looking for solutions when talking to various stakeholders. Does she think that we are going to be able to get this to the PROC committee any time soon? Is she looking forward to a vote on this? Can she guess when that will be?
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting because our critic just had her first opportunity to speak on this bill this morning. As a member of the PROC committee, I am just getting my turn as well. Let us not tell people out there that we are working on this bill when this is the first time we have gotten to speak on it. Let us change the direction there.
Let us go back to the fall of 2020. I am sorry, but twice the government put forward opportunities for votes of confidence. People like me are being asked to vote against something that I clearly cannot support, such as supporting an overwhelming $1.4-trillion debt to Canadians, to my family members and to my grandchildren. I cannot pass that legislation, so maybe, in turn, the government can put forward something that is worthy and perhaps work with all parties to ensure that we have good, healthy legislation that is good for all Canadians.
View Jag Sahota Profile
CPC (AB)
View Jag Sahota Profile
2021-05-07 10:34 [p.6888]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the COVID-19 response.
I am disappointed that the government is so out of touch with Canadians that it wants to amend the Canada Elections Act so it can call an election during a pandemic. Canadians do not want an election, especially during this vicious third wave of the pandemic. While the members opposite claimed to also not want one, it was the Liberals who introduced this legislation in the middle of a pandemic.
Just the other day the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was blaming the Conservatives for blocking the bill. However, as my colleague, the opposition House Leader, rightly pointed out, the Liberal government only has itself to blame for the slow pace of the bill.
The government sets the agenda, and it has only allowed the bill to be debated for three hours since its initial introduction almost five months ago. Now there seems to be a sense of great urgency by the Liberal government. While Canadians are suffering from the current COVID lockdowns and still being unable to return to work, the Liberal government is trying to push this legislation through, resulting in many Canadians wondering if the government cares more about its political fortunes rather than working for Canadians, prioritizing getting Canadians back to work and rebuilding our economy.
The mere idea that the government, a government that states it will be driven by science and facts to make decisions, wants to push this legislation through so quickly means it is completely ignoring the facts. Not only do Canadians not want an election, but in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, where general elections were held, they saw a spike in the number of COVID-19 cases, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, where just days before the election, a whole section of the province saw such a spike in cases that the Chief Electoral Officer had to pause the election until the outbreak got under control. People's lives are more important than an election.
While the Liberal government's intention to ram this bill through Parliament are definitely questionable at best, the Conservatives have many concerns with the bill. For starters, it has not escaped us that this is a minority Parliament. We all know that minority parliaments are very volatile and do not necessary last the full four years. This is why, at the beginning of this pandemic, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conducted a study on how Elections Canada could safely conduct an election during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Something as fundamental as how Canadians elect their members of Parliament must have participation from all members of the House, which is exactly what PROC was doing. However, the government decided that it did not want to wait for the all-party committee report. Instead, it decided to completely ignore any potential recommendations from the committee, including the committee's majority report recommendations that the government not call a federal election during the pandemic unless it was defeated on a motion of non-confidence. Instead, the Liberal government expressed its contempt for Parliament and tabled this bill. Complaining that it has not moved fast enough has clearly indicated to Canadians its desire to recklessly send Canadians to the polls at whatever time it deems to be the most advantageous for the Prime Minister.
Just the other day, members opposite were accusing the Conservatives of not having a consistent message throughout this pandemic, however, we have been consistent. We have consistently said no to an election during this pandemic. It has been the members opposite who have been inconsistent in their messaging in their refusal to commit to not calling an election during this pandemic unless defeated in a non-confidence motion.
I was quite pleased with my colleagues on PROC for their hard work in standing up for Canadians and ensuring that if an election were to be called, they made some great recommendations on how to safely conduct a general election.
Some of the recommendations we made included: that Elections Canada develop a task force responsible for extensively consulting with long-term care homes to determine a safe and mutually agreeable way to conduct a vote in long-term care homes; that these consultations include both national and regional stakeholders and that these consultations include consideration of how rapid testing of Elections Canada employees may increase the safety of residents of long-term care homes; that the government commit to making rapid tests available to Elections Canada for the purpose of conducting an election during the COVID-19 pandemic; that Elections Canada provide a list of expected situations where it would require an expansion to the Chief Electoral Officer's adaptation power as well as a list of actions that would remain prohibited under the expanded adaptation power and that these lists be tabled before Parliament for review and approval; that any unanticipated adaptations require the approval of the advisory committee of political parties struck under section 21.1 (1) of the Canada Elections Act; that Elections Canada ensure all voting locations are accessible for those living with disabilities and that alternative methods of voting such as mail-in ballots are adequately accessible for all voters who do not wish to leave their homes; that Elections Canada stick with the tried and true mail-in ballot process, which sets a deadline for ballots to be mailed and does not count any after election day; that Elections Canada outline a plan to reconcile the number of special ballots received during the course of the election with the number of special ballots distributed and that up-to-date information on who has received mail-in ballots be made available to candidates and registered political parties throughout the election; and that the federal government commit to not calling a federal election during the pandemic unless it is defeated on a motion of non-confidence and that the government ensure the majority of Canadians at an elevated risk from the pandemic will have received the vaccine prior to calling an election.
All these recommendations are designed to protect Canadians and to put them first. It is disappointing to see a Canadian government more interested in getting itself re-elected and using a health crisis, a pandemic, as cover instead of pouring all its resources into getting Canadians back to normal.
I want my constituents to know that under a Conservative government we would be focused on securing mass shipments of vaccines to get Canadians vaccinated, but we would also be focused on getting Canadians back to work and securing stable, well-paying jobs and ensuring we start actually addressing mental health.
Under a Conservative government, we would take immediate action to help the hardest hit sectors, including helping women and young Canadians who have suffered the most. We would assist small businesses and provide incentives to invest in, build and start new businesses.
We would also focus on mental health. COVID-19 has certainly highlighted the shortcomings in our health care sector when it comes to mental health. We would increase the funding to the provinces for mental health care and provide incentives to employers to provide mental health coverage to employees as well as create a nationwide three-digit suicide prevention hotline.
While the Liberals continue to look toward advancing their own agenda and padding the pockets of their friends, Canadians can take solace in that Canada's Conservatives will have their backs and stand up for them, their pocketbooks, their health and their jobs.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-04-19 15:36 [p.5815]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 15th report later this day.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-04-19 15:40 [p.5816]
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-04-14 15:55 [p.5570]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the report concurred in.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Pursuant to section 536 of the Canada Elections Act, it is my duty to lay upon the table a report on the 2020 by-elections.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, several committees have had their work stalled by Liberal obstruction tactics. Yesterday, the procedure and House affairs committee was obstructed by Liberals who have been talking since February 23 about everything from their favourite Christopher Nolan movie to spoiled yoghurt in their office fridges.
The Liberals continue to waste time to protect the Prime Minister from having to explain why he shut down Parliament last August when the WE scandal became too much for him. Why is this government wasting the time of the committees to protect the Prime Minister?
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-03-26 11:56 [p.5362]
Madam Speaker, I have said many times that we believe in the work of committees. They do extremely important work, which is done by all members, but they decide on their own agendas. My colleague from the Conservative Party knows that. We are always going to be there to participate and help with the work of the committees because, as I said, it is extremely important. I would like the Conservatives to stop playing these games.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-03-12 12:16 [p.4984]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the items added to the order of precedence on Monday, February 22, 2021, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.
View Mark Holland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Mark Holland Profile
2021-03-08 16:01 [p.4676]
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment, with your indulgence, to extend on behalf of all members of Parliament and all Canadians a massive thanks to the House administration. What we just saw in the last vote, with not a single technical error, was an absolute flawless execution of an incredibly difficult task. We were able to watch for months as the House administration not only helped us in this incredible change, but dealt with the adaptations as a result of COVID across the board. We are deeply in their debt, every day, for all the ways in which they serve us.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for their extraordinary work in getting us to this point.
Lastly, I want to thank my colleagues, the whips for the Bloc, the Conservatives and the New Democrats, who were extraordinary to work with through this. This was all able to be achieved through unanimous consent, which is no small thing.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-02-26 12:13 [p.4614]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Final Report: Protecting Public Health and Democracy during a Possible Pandemic Election.”
View John Nater Profile
CPC (ON)
View John Nater Profile
2021-02-26 12:13 [p.4614]
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 35(2), on behalf of the official opposition, I am tabling the Conservative supplementary report to the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
This supplementary report addresses the shortcomings of the committee report and highlights several of the risks of the Liberals calling an unnecessary pandemic election before it is safe to do so. This supplementary report particularly notes the challenges for Canadian voters living in long-term care homes.
I would like to thank the clerk, the analysts, the interpreters and all committee staff for their exceptional work during these difficult circumstances.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-02-16 10:11 [p.4093]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the report be concurred in.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Alex Ruff Profile
CPC (ON)
View Alex Ruff Profile
2021-02-16 10:13 [p.4094]
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I am sure you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Mr. Nater (Perth—Wellington) for Mr. Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George), and Mr. Kent (Thornhill) for Mr. Tochor (Saskatoon—University).
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you should find consent to adopt the following motion.
I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: that the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation be the replacement for the member for Mississauga Centre.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Larry Bagnell Profile
Lib. (YT)
View Larry Bagnell Profile
2021-02-01 13:37 [p.3818]
Mr. Speaker, as other members have said, I will be giving my own personal opinions. I have not talked to any member from any party about my ideas.
As a former chair of PROC, I think the results of this debate may depend on how PROC deals with it. PROC is a very busy committee. It has a lot of things to do, and there have been serious, major issues raised today that PROC just would not have time to get to. To deal with some of the major issues like electronic voting or a second chamber, I think PROC should consider creating subcommittees that could have other members, not just PROC members. Some of these issues may then actually be dealt with.
My major point today is one on which I have been pushing for years now, and I will take this opportunity to push it again. It is that when we return to the House, we should have electronic voting there. I am chair of the parliamentarians of the Arctic nations, and every one of the seven Arctic nations has electronic voting.
I do not think it serves people well when what now takes several hours for a few votes could be done in a couple of minutes. Millions and millions of dollars are being spent on this. I do not think workers in Canada appreciate it when millions and millions of dollars of their money are being spent just so that members can stand up before the results go in Hansard. That is where everyone finds out how we vote. The record is in Hansard. If there were a button on our desks, we could just push it. The results would show up on a screen, and then they would go into Hansard and everyone would know how we voted.
There is also the opportunity cost. Members are constantly saying they want more time to discuss important bills, yet we are taking hours upon hours in each session for people to stand up one at a time to vote.
For members who have questions about this, we could have trials. There could be certain votes that it would not apply to and for which members would still have to stand. We could do trial sessions, as has happened in the hybrid Parliament. As the Green Party member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands has said, I think we need to get into the 20th century, even, and make Parliament more efficient in that way. Perhaps the Library of Parliament could do a study, and maybe they already have, on how this is done around the world.
I would like to raise some other potential points. First, I do not think it makes sense to require unanimous consent to start the committees. Second, Sweden has votes only Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and that type of discipline would certainly free up a lot of members who have other urgent things to do and who may not be able to be in the House for votes or, as an NDP member said, be able to travel 20 hours for a 10-minute vote.
Another point is that PROC has dealt with electronic voting before and has said it was something that could be discussed in the future, as it did with the idea of a second chamber. The House of Commons in Britain and the House of Representatives in Australia both have a second chamber. That gives more MPs time to speak. We hear time and time again that more MPs would have liked to speak on a bill, as we heard again today. A second chamber would allow that, as it does in those other parliaments. This is great timing for PROC to do a study on that, because we have a second chamber being built in the Centre Block and we have this one in the West Block.
The other point is that in a pandemic or an emergency, such as damage to a House, we would be ready to go. That is another reason to do that as well.
As we have proven in the virtual Parliament, Friday sittings work very well. There is no reason Friday sittings and even Monday mornings could not be done by virtual Parliament. Sometimes in the past, because of my travel of 28 hours and eight airports every weekend, I would get home Saturday night, depending on delays and airplanes and everything, and have to leave eight hours later to get on four planes at 4:00 a.m. Sunday to get back here. Friday and Monday sittings are terribly inconvenient for my young family.
I once again go on record to say that I hope PROC reports on the Centre Block renovations. I have been pushing for a playground in the empty courtyard, particularly for women with children.
I do not think we should require a vote regarding the Standing Order that allows a member to be heard. There should be another process for that, because it is a good way for any party to waste time if it wants to.
What PROC or one of its subcommittees should discuss are the rules for pandemics and other emergencies that could occur, such as a fire. We need more detailed rules so that we can carry on regardless of what happens. Good examples would be a standing order related to social distancing during a pandemic or for a fire that requires movement to another building, such as a second House of Commons.
The points made about unanimous consent are very important. Sometimes we go through three reading stages, hours in committees, three votes, and then the same process in the Senate, to discuss major issues that are important to Canadians. They are given very thoughtful consideration throughout our system. There are a lot of protections to make sure this process is done right and is carefully thought out. However, someone can raise a motion for unanimous consent, and then we have 10 seconds to think about something major and make a decision on it. We have to look at how that could be made more efficient, relevant and appropriate.
I agree with what was mentioned today, I believe by an NDP House leader or former House leader, with respect to the order of the private members' draw. I too was in Parliament for well over a decade before my name was drawn for a private member's bill. One way that problem could be fixed is if the order could be carried over from one Parliament to the next for members who are re-elected. I know that solution has been proposed before.
Programming in general and the programming of government bills is a very good idea. It is done in many other houses. The opposition parties and the government sit down to decide how things would be discussed and for how long. If the Library of Parliament or a perceptive journalist were to do a study on how much time was spent on some very serious issues compared to some that could be dealt with very quickly, they would find that the time spent was not appropriate. That is because programming is not done. Programming would allow more time for things that have very serious consequences and are very important to Canadians. It would also provide for more orderly progress in the House and avoid the extensive delays that we see, which are not productive and which reduce the number of times a person can speak on very important matters they want to speak on.
There are a lot of things that PROC could discuss, but it is going to have to work out how it can do it because its plate is already full. It would have to set up committees or a process to be able to deal with some of these serious issues. There are so many of them that we need a process to deal with them all.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-02-01 15:58 [p.3837]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and Standing Order 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 10th report later this day.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-02-01 16:00 [p.3837]
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
I declare the motion carried.
View Alexandra Mendès Profile
Lib. (QC)
It being 6:30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 51(2), the matter is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-01-29 12:10 [p.3777]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the order for the second reading of a private member's public bill originating in the Senate and the items added to the Order of Precedence on Friday, December 11, 2020, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2021-01-25 15:18 [p.3401]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House and I should like to move concurrence in the eighth report at this time.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
This being a hybrid sitting, for the sake of clarity I will ask all those opposed to the request to express their disagreement. Accordingly, all those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2020-12-11 12:15 [p.3344]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs entitled, “Interim Report: Protecting Public Health and Democracy During a Possible Pandemic Election”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
I wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy holidays and happy new year.
View Todd Doherty Profile
CPC (BC)
View Todd Doherty Profile
2020-12-11 12:16 [p.3344]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a dissenting report to the PROC committee report on conducting an election during the pandemic.
Elections belong to all of us, so the Conservative members approached this study in the spirit of collaboration and in good faith, which we all should do. The committee finished this report on Tuesday morning. Then the Liberals gave notice of their elections bill that night, showing that they did not care to see even what witnesses had to say during our month-long study. It has become clear that this study was about avoiding, at all costs, a study of the real reasons why the Liberals prorogued Parliament during the WE scandal.
The Conservatives want to thank all the witnesses for sharing their views. We also want to apologize sincerely to all the public health officials who took time away from their responsibilities during the pandemic to appear before the committee and have their time wasted because of the government's arrogance.
View Omar Alghabra Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Omar Alghabra Profile
2020-11-30 15:11 [p.2689]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the sixth report later this day.
View Omar Alghabra Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Omar Alghabra Profile
2020-11-30 15:12 [p.2689]
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to the motion to express their disagreement.
Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2020-11-25 15:21 [p.2418]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth and fifth reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to its studies on the main estimates for the fiscal year 2020-21 and the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year 2020-21.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2020-11-20 12:12 [p.2192]
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114 and pursuant to the House order made on Wednesday, September 23, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I would like to move concurrence at this time.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask for those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.
Accordingly, all those opposed to moving the motion please say nay. Hearing none, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2020-10-22 10:08 [p.1071]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the items added to the order of precedence on Thursday, February 27, 2020, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ruby Sahota Profile
2020-10-19 15:57 [p.871]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 114 and the order of the House of September 23, 2020, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House and I should like to move concurrence at this time.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask for those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement.
Accordingly, all those opposed to moving the motion please say nay. Hearing none, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motions. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
2020-10-19 15:59 [p.871]
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Mr. Daniel Blaikie, Elmwood—Transcona, for Ms. Rachel Blaney, North Island—Powell River, and that the name of Ms. Blaney, North Island—Powell River, be added to the list of associate members of the said committee.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
This being a hybrid sitting of the House, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask those who are opposed to moving the motion to express their disagreement.
Accordingly, all those opposed to moving the motion please say nay. Hearing none, it is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motions. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. There being no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.
Results: 1 - 60 of 72 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data